Merc1107 wrote:A friendly reminder that we do have *a* Scania L94UA CNG demonstrator... Not that it goes out particularly much, given its entirely lacklustre performance these days (Try 0 to about 15km/h in about 10 seconds) compared to new, but it still exists nonetheless.

Why don't they just take it out the back to be shot? An easy way to make Perth a Scania free zone.

It would be interesting to look at 1. The proportion of jobs that can be reasonably accessed by public transport that runs every 15 min or better from most homes (largely CBD and weekday daytime only jobs) and 2. its modal share for travel to such jobs.

For transport to jobs the most glaring network deficiency is their geographic distribution. If you work in Balcatta, Osborne Park, Malaga, O'Connor, Welshpool or Belmont your commute is (as a best case scenario) likely to be at least a bus then a train then a bus. This has substantial time penalties over driving on uncrowded (and sometimes crowded) roads. And if people own a car anyway (which they do in Perth) then usage of this if parking is 'free' can be compelling.

Even harder are the nature of the jobs themselves. A structural trend in the labour market has greatly eroded the proportion of jobs that are reasonably accessible by public transport. We can't do much about mobile jobs or those that require stuff to be carried. Or jobs that require driving your own car. Working hours might be a bit easier. Eg increasing evening services to 15 min would allow reasonable access to jobs that finish late. Here you've got public safety concerns kicking in. It would be interesting to look at evening patronage on routes like the 950 that already offer this level of service.

If we want the city form to reflect what we want with regards to transport usage then we should be seeking dense job clusters with only on-street or centralised paid parking. This is possibly even more important than population density. Still, housing policy can help with clusters around stations that tend to have lower car ownership than elsewhere.

The above has only discussed transport to jobs. It would be interesting to see how non-job transport has fared. More leisure events in the CBD is one solution but any substantial gain must be driven by increasing its use for off-peak suburban trips which are traditionally difficult to serve.

This is far from new news in that it was also covered in the 2016 annual report. The end of the mining construction boom and increasing office vacancy rate/downturn of jobs in the CBD translates into a significant downturn in CBD patronage which is the main market for all Australian public transport systems (probably most in the world too). The fact remains that of all the smaller automobile-based Australian cities (that is apart from Sydney and Melbourne and to some extent Brisbane), Perth has had the greatest success in breaking into car use and increasing public transport mode share against somewhat overwhelming odds. It remains the exemplar in the Australian public transport scene.

The strain on our system is due to the federal government's immigration intake and guess where the majority head to? This is why the feds have an obligation to chip in more of the cost of our PT upgrades and expansion, as well as the sewerage burden these newcomers contribute to. They make the decision to impose the second and third world population problem into the nation ( site to some crazy white guilt complex), and Sydney + Melbourne are expected to be burdened with the repercussions of this senseless programme. That anachronistic 1950s mantra populate or perish has to be dropped, unless it is applied only to country towns.

Thanks, I knew they'd be out this month. Perth is showing the effects of the end of the mining construction phase and the higher office vacancy rate in the CBD, resulting on lower PT journeys to CBD and has also affected parking revenue and number of cars entering the CBD. It also continues to battle against the highest rate of car ownership in the country and the ease of driving.

Note the extraordinary rises in car ownership in the Central Coast and Wollongong sectors in NSW. A reaction to declining quality of rail service?

Here are the two most pertinent graphs of the figures, from Charting Transport:

I think it's also necessary to look at the two graphs against each other, focussing on the cities that are holding their own or growing public transport patronage relative to high and growing rates of car ownership. In this comparison, Perth, Canberra and Adelaide are holding out well, Brisbane and Hobart aren't. Sydney is sort of level-pegging, while Melbourne's public transport growth is somewhat disappointing considering the flatlining of growth of car ownership.

tonyp wrote:Note the extraordinary rises in car ownership in the Central Coast and Wollongong sectors in NSW. A reaction to declining quality of rail service?

Being unfamiliar with the NSW Economy (but knowing as a whole, the Australian economy is a fair bit below the 'ideal' long-run trends), I do wonder if it could be changes in working, and thus commuting habits?

My understanding of NSW is purely from what I've heard - I'm told PT around Sydney in particular are significantly more expensive than comparative journeys in Perth, yet usage is higher due to the very high congestion on roads.

Yes, much more road congestion in NSW than Perth. In spite of the increasing car ownership however, Wollongong and Central Coast are still holding the line on public transport use. One thing that surprises me is the strength of public transport use in Wollongong compared to Newcastle, considering the latter is a larger city. This probably refects the difference between the strong linear corridor in Wollongong compared to the scattered, decentred structure of Newcastle.

Using detailed statistics for each major city and using the ABS-defined "Urban Centre", which is basically the main metropolitan area of a city, I can bring you these figures for PT use in capital AND major regional cities (which differ a little from Charting Transport who have used a larger defined area):

I wonder if this has something to do with it? After all the census data covers riding in any bus, not just public buses. This is a major Darwin employer with about 3,500 people I understand (LNG project) and if they're all bussed about that would have an impact:

tonyp wrote:I wonder if this has something to do with it? After all the census data covers riding in any bus, not just public buses. This is a major Darwin employer with about 3,500 people I understand (LNG project) and if they're all bussed about that would have an impact:

How did Darwin do it? Sure its fares are cheap. But it features sprawl and low traffic congestion.

And its complex bus network and service levels (rarely better than every 30 min) are unlikely to attract car owners.

I've come across a couple of papers recently, one in the immediate post-privatisation time several years back, and one produced in the last year or so. Both papers highlight the aim for Darwinbus' services (bar services in the rural areas) to be moved to a baseline 30 minute frequency in the coming year or so.

There are several routes offering frequency better than half-hourly. Unfortunately, whether due to shift requirements, or just poor planning, many of the popular trunk routes (#4, #10, #9, #8) have what could be best described as "musical frequencies." In the space of any hour, you might get departures every: 20mins, 10mins, 5mins, 8mins, 15min, 25mins. You can't have a reliable bus network when the bloody buses never leave at the same time of the hour twice!

Suburban routes are more predictable, but a 65min headway off-peak is both bizarre and confusing (this is presumably related to avoiding dead-running). During Peak, services return to their more "musical" timings. Off-Peak, there is rarely any connection from a suburban service to a major trunk service. I'll leave the reader to imagine what that might be like! Another issue in the suburbs is the use of one-way, circular services. Realistically, most of these runs should be cut in half, with the buses turning around halfway, and traveling back the same route. The idea of serving as much of an area as you can with as few buses as possible just makes the whole system hugely inconvenient to use - especially when you're 5mins from the interchange but have to spend 25mins on the bus just to get there.

Finishing off my summary of the services is duplication. The OrbitalLink has just one or two stops outside of the major interchanges, essentially a combined, express #8, 9 & 10. I don't mind this - saves you being on the "gravy train" when traveling from Casuarina in particular. These services are generally peak-only, departing in unison with their non-express counterparts.OrbitalLinks are usually quite busy, however an important source of patrons is lost by not traveling via Charles Darwin University (Casuarina campus). Instead, these passengers must connect at Casuarina (how fun! ). The #28 express from Humpty-Doo could probably just feed into the Orbitals at Palmerston, as opposed to traveling the entire distance to the city via Tiger Brennan Drive.

I would urge anyone who visits Darwin to get in contact with the DIPL and offer your feedback and suggestions on the network. Following submission of my feedback, I was contacted not long afterward and thanked for my detailed feedback. It's not all negative in the NT, either. Fleet presentation and the simple ticketing system are both incredibly well done, and fare evasion seems very low.

Perth has a superior hive mind to the establishment over here. They have the key ingredient we lack. Positive proactive planning as opposed to reactionary policies -waiting for the crisis to hit first, then act only when it would be political suicide not to.